Ex Parte Cygnor

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2009

10922293 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte JOHN EDWARD CYGNOR 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2008-006072 11
Application 10/922,293 12
Technology Center 3700 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided: September 8, 2009 16
____________________ 17
18
Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and 19
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
21
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge SILVERBERG. 22
23
Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge McCARTHY. 24
25
SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. 26
27
28
DECISION ON APPEAL 29
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
John Edward Cygnor (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. 2
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-9 and 11- 171. We have jurisdiction 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 4
5
SUMMARY OF DECISION 6
We REVERSE. 7
8
THE INVENTION 9
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a vane pump 10
employing radially pressured balanced vanes. (Spec. 1: ¶ [1]). 11
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on 12
appeal. 13
1. A radially pressured balanced vane pump 14
assembly comprising: 15
a housing defining an inlet port and a 16
discharge port; 17
a cam block defining a continuous inner 18
surface having a first radius; 19

1 The Status of Claims section of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 2) states that
claims 1-9 and 11-17 are the subject of this appeal. Neither the Appeal Brief
nor the Examiner’s Answer contains either a rejection of claim 15 or an
argument regarding claim 15 (App. Br. 5, Ans. 3). However, both the Office
Action Summary of the Final Rejection, dated January 4, 2007, and the
Office Action Summary of the Non-Final Rejection, dated August 22, 2006,
list claim 15 as pending and as being rejected. Therefore, claim 15 has been
twice rejected, although it has been inadvertently omitted from the body of
the rejection of claims 9 and 11-14. Accordingly, claim 15 will be
considered in this appeal as being rejected along with claims 9 and 11-14.
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

3
a rotor supported on a shaft for rotation 1
within said cam block; and 2
a plurality of "L" shaped vanes supported 3
for radial movement within said rotor, each of said 4
"L" shaped vanes comprising a vane tip having a 5
second radius different than the first radius 6
centered on a centerline offset relative to a leading 7
surface of a vane leg of said vane to create a 8
controlled unbalanced force to bias each of said 9
plurality of vanes into contact with said inner 10
surface of said cam block. 11
12
THE REJECTIONS 13
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of 14
unpatentability: 15
McGill US 3,054,357 Sep. 18, 1962 16
Davin US 3,102,493 Sep. 3, 1963 17
Frank US 4,175,393 Nov. 27, 1979 18
Fujii US 5,518,380 May 21, 1996 19
Sundberg US 5,733,109 Mar. 31, 1998 20
21
The following rejections by the Examiner are before us for review: 22
1. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 23
unpatentable over Sundberg in view of Frank. 24
2. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 25
unpatentable over Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of 26
Fujii. 27
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable 28
over Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of McGill. 29
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

4
4. Claims 9 and 11-152 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 1
unpatentable over Sundberg in view of Fujii, and further in view of 2
Davin. 3
5. Claims 4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 4
unpatentable over Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of 5
Davin. 6
7
ISSUES 8
The issues before us are: (1) whether it would have been obvious to 9
combine Sundberg’s vane pump with Frank’s teachings of vanes having 10
broad extensions (enlarged head) to provide a plurality of “L” shaped vanes 11
that are centered on a centerline, which is offset relative to a leading surface 12
of a vane leg to create a controlled unbalanced force as called for in claim 1 13
(App. Br. 6), and (2) whether it would have been obvious to combine 14
Sundberg’s vane pump with Davin’s teachings of balancing the pressure on 15
both sides of a vane to provide a vane having a passage there through as 16
called for in claims 9 and 16 (App. Br. 9-10). 17
18
ANALYSIS 19
Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 20
unpatentable over Sundberg in view of Frank 21
Appellant contends that providing Sundberg with a broadened head 22
would defeat the variable pressure loading that is provided by the split vane 23
(App. Br. 6). Appellant further contends that Frank’s longer vane tips 58 24
provide increased pressure against the cam surface and do not provide, and 25

2 See 1.
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

5
in fact, teach away from a varied sealing pressure as described by Sundberg 1
(App. Br. 6). 2
The Examiner found that (1) Sundberg describes a vane pump as 3
called for in claim 1, except that Sundberg does not describe a tip long 4
enough so that the centerline is offset from the leg as called for in claim 1 5
(Ans. 3); (2) Frank describes a vane pump having vanes 36, wherein the 6
vanes 36 have a tip long enough so that the centerline of the vane is offset 7
from the leg (Ans. 3); and (3) it would have been obvious to modify 8
Sundberg’s vanes to provide a tip that is long enough as taught by Frank to 9
provide more effective sealing (Ans. 3-4). 10
Sundberg describes a pump 10 having a smooth cam surface 13 and 11
vanes 21. Sundberg’s vanes 21 are movable within slots 22, and are formed 12
of an upper vane portion 27 and a lower vane portion 28, wherein the upper 13
vane portion 27 has a vane tip for contacting the cam surface 13 (col. 3, ll. 9-14
14 and 39-44; col. 4, ll. 10-22). Sundberg’s two-piece vane design assures 15
positive tracking of the vane tips in the seal arc areas (col. 2, ll. 42-62). 16
Sundberg further describes that the vane pump incorporates “novel vanes 17
and undervane venting which produce selective regulated pressure-loading 18
of the vanes against the cam surface and more positive tracking in the 19
incoming seal arc and the outgoing or discharge or seal arc of the pump 20
rather than uniform pressure balancing of the vanes throughout the 360° cam 21
chamber.” (col. 2, ll. 34-41). 22
Frank describes segments (vanes) 36 slidingly supported in guide slits 23
18, the segments 36 are provided with broad extensions 58, the broad 24
extensions 58 are configured like a hammer head, wherein the outer surfaces 25
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

6
of the broad extensions 58 contact the inner surface of the cylindrical box 48 1
(col. 4, ll. 8-45; fig. 3). 2
Frank further describes that the enlarged outer surfaces of the 3
segments (the broad extensions) produce higher friction (col. 2, ll. 32-33). 4
Frank still further describes that at higher speeds the pressure between the 5
outer surfaces of the enlarged parts (the broad extensions) 58 and the inner 6
surface of the box 48 becomes higher, whereby the enlarged parts 58 stick to 7
the inner surface of the box 48 (col. 6, ll. 1-7). 8
Therefore, combining the teachings of Sundberg and Frank as 9
proposed by the Examiner to provide Sundberg with an enlarged head as 10
taught by Frank at 58 (Ans. 3-4 ), would also provide Sundberg with (1) 11
increased pressure between the outer surfaces of the enlarged head and the 12
cam 13, and (2) increased friction between the enlarged head and the cam 13
13. Since Sundberg describes variable pressure loading of the vanes 21 14
against the cam surface 13, any increased pressure and/or friction between 15
Sundberg’s vane 21 and the cam surface 13 would interfere with the tracking 16
of Sundberg’s vane tips against the cam surface 13. Therefore, it would not 17
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the 18
teachings of Sundberg and Frank. Accordingly, the Examiner has not made 19
a prima facie case of obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 20
17-18 (1966). See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 407 21
(2007) (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any 22
particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that 23
controls.”) 24
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

7
Therefore, since the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of 1
obviousness, the Examiner has erred in finding that it would have been 2
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings 3
of Sundberg and Frank. 4
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has demonstrated that the 5
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Sundberg in view of Frank. The 6
Appellant has likewise demonstrated error in the Examiner’s rejection of 7
claims 2, 3 and 5, which depend from claim 1. 8
9
Rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 10
Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of Davin 11
The Examiner has not relied on Davin for any teaching that would 12
remedy the deficiency in the combination of Sundberg and Frank (Ans. 6). 13
We thus conclude that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 4 over 14
Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of Davin. 15
16
Rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 17
Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of Fujii 18
The Examiner has not relied on Fujii for any teaching that would 19
remedy the deficiency in the combination of Sundberg and Frank (Ans. 4). 20
We thus conclude that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claims 6-7 over 21
Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of Fujii. 22
23
Rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 24
Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of McGill 25
The Examiner has not relied on McGill for any teaching that would 26
remedy the deficiency in the combination of Sundberg and Frank (Ans. 4). 27
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

8
We thus conclude that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 8 over 1
Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of McGill. 2
3
Rejection of claims 9 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 4
unpatentable over Sundberg in view of Fujii, and further in view of Davin, 5
and Rejection of claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 6
unpatentable over Sundberg in view of Frank, and further in view of Davin 7
Appellant contends that the proposed combination of the teachings of 8
Sundberg and Davin would destroy the intended operation of Sundberg 9
(App. Br. 9). Appellant further contends that uniform balanced pressure is 10
counter to the intended purpose of Sundberg’s vane pump (App. Br. 10). 11
The Examiner found that (1) Sundberg describes a vane pump as 12
called for in claims 9 and 16, except that Sundberg does not describe a 13
passage connecting the leading edge and the trailing edge of the vane (Ans. 14
5), (2) Davin describes that it is well known to have a vane 34 with a 15
passage 58 to connect the leading edge with the trailing edge of a vane to 16
balance pressure and to prolong pump life (fig. 2 and cols. 3-6) (Ans. 5, 6 17
and 9), and (3) that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary 18
skill in the art to modify the passage in Sundberg to have the passage 19
connect the leading edge and the trailing edge as taught by Davin to balance 20
pressure on both sides of the vane and to prolong pump life (Ans. 5). 21
Sundberg describes that the vane pump incorporates “novel vanes and 22
undervane venting which produce selective regulated pressure-loading of the 23
vanes against the cam surface and more positive tracking in the incoming 24
seal arc and the outgoing or discharge or seal arc of the pump rather than 25
uniform pressure balancing of the vanes throughout the 360° cam chamber.” 26
(col. 2, ll. 34-41). Therefore, Sundberg describes providing selective 27
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

9
regulated pressure-loading of the vanes rather than uniform pressure 1
balancing of the vanes. 2
Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s findings as to teachings of 3
Davin (App. Br. 9-10). 4
However, since Sundberg describes providing selective regulated 5
pressure-loading of the vanes rather than uniform pressure balancing of the 6
vanes, Sundberg teaches away from balancing the pressure on both sides of 7
the vane. Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding that it would have 8
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the 9
teachings of Sundberg and Davin to balance the pressure on both sides of the 10
vane. In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A reference 11
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the 12
reference, . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was 13
taken by the applicant.”) See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 14
398, 416 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52 (1966)) 15
(“[W]hen the prior art teaches away from combining certain known 16
elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely 17
to be nonobvious.”) 18
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has demonstrated that the 19
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 16 over, inter alia, Sundberg in 20
view of Davin. The Appellant has likewise demonstrated error in the 21
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-15 and 17, which depend from claims 9 22
and 16, respectively. 23
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1
Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in concluding that it 2
would have been obvious to combine Sundberg’s vane pump with Frank’s 3
teachings of vanes having broad extensions (enlarged head) to provide a 4
plurality of “L” shaped vanes that are centered on a centerline, which is 5
offset relative to a leading surface of a vane leg to create a controlled 6
unbalanced force as called for in claim 1. Appellant has established that the 7
Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to combine 8
Sundberg’s vane pump with Davin’s teachings of balancing the pressure on 9
both sides of a vane to provide a vane having a passage there through as 10
called for in claims 9 and 16 (App. Br. 9-10). 11
12
DECISION 13
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 and 11-17 is 14
reversed. 15
16
REVERSED 17
18
Klh 19
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

11
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting. 1
2
I agree with my colleagues’ decision not to sustain the rejections of 3
claims 1-3 and 5 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sundberg and 4
Frank; of claims 6 and 7 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 5
Sundberg, Frank and Fujii; of claim 8 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 6
over Sundberg, Frank and McGill; of claims 9 and 11-15 under § 103(a) as 7
being unpatentable over Sundberg, Fujii and Davin; and of claims 4 and 17 8
under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sundberg, Frank and Davin. I 9
would sustain the rejection of claim 16 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 10
over Sundberg, Frank and Davin. 11
In this dissenting opinion, I will address only the rejections of claims 12
9, 16 and 17. These claims read as follows: 13
9. A vane pump assembly comprising: 14
a housing defining an inlet port and a 15
discharge port; 16
a cam block defining a continuous inner 17
surface; 18
a rotor supported on a shaft for rotation 19
within said cam block; 20
a plurality of “L” shaped vanes supported 21
for radial movement within said rotor, wherein 22
each of said plurality of vanes comprises a leading 23
surface and a trailing surface, and a passage 24
through said vane to communicate pressure 25
between said leading surface and said trailing 26
surface; 27
an undervane discharge channel and an 28
overvane discharge channel; and 29
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

12
a valve for regulating pressure 1
communication between said undervane discharge 2
channel and said overvane discharge channel. 3
16. A radially pressured balanced vane 4
pump assembly comprising: 5
a housing defining an inlet port and a 6
discharge port; 7
a cam block defining a continuous inner 8
surface; 9
a rotor supported on a shaft for rotation 10
within said cam block, wherein said rotor includes 11
a plurality of radial slots; and 12
a plurality of “L” shaped vanes supported 13
for radial movement within said radial slots of said 14
rotor, each of said “L” shaped vanes including a 15
first opening in a leading surface and a second 16
opening in a trailing surface, and a passage 17
through said vane to communicate pressure 18
between said leading surface and said trailing 19
surface, wherein the second opening on the trailing 20
edge remains within the radial slots during all 21
operation. 22
17. The assembly as recited in claim 16, 23
wherein said plurality of “L” shaped vanes 24
includes a vane tip having a radius with a 25
centerline offset in a direction of rotation relative 26
to a leading surface of a vane leg of said vane to 27
created a controlled unbalanced force to bias each 28
of said plurality of vanes into contact with said 29
inner surface of said cam block. 30
The Examiner finds that Sundberg discloses each limitation of 31
independent claims 9 and 16 except a passage through a vane to 32
communicate pressure between a leading surface and a trailing surface of the 33
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

13
vane; and a valve for regulating pressure communication between an 1
undervane discharge channel and an overvane discharge channel. (Ans. 5 2
and 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious: 3
4
to modify the passage in Sundberg to have 5
connecting passage between the leading edge and 6
the trailing edge as taught by Davin for the 7
purpose of balancing pressure and prolonging 8
pump life, and to provide a fluid control valve with 9
orifices in Sundberg as taught by Fujii et al for the 10
purpose of controlling the fluid supply/exhaust 11
from the vane pump. 12
13
(Ans. 5). 14
The Appellant contends that the combined teachings of Sundberg, 15
Fujii and Davin would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art no 16
reason to incorporate a fluid control valve for regulating pressure 17
communication between an undervane discharge channel and an overvane 18
discharge channel into a vane pump similar to that described by Sundberg. 19
(App. Br. 9). The Appellant further contends that one purpose of 20
Sundberg’s invention was to selectively regulate the positive loading 21
pressure of the vanes against the inner surface of the cam block in both of 22
the seal arc areas (or, to use the Appellant’s language, in the pump and seal 23
arcs) to assure positive tracking of the vane tips in these areas. (App. Br. 6, 24
citing Sundberg, col. 2, ll. 34-41). The Appellant argues that one of ordinary 25
skill in the art would have had no reason to incorporate a passage through 26
the vane described by Sundberg to communicate pressure between the 27
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

14
leading and trailing surfaces, since doing so would defeat this intended 1
purpose of Sundberg’s invention. (App. Br. 9). 2
The subject matter of claim 16 would have been obvious from 3
Sundberg, Frank and Davin. Sundberg discloses a vane pump 10 including a 4
housing defining an inlet port and a discharge port; a cam member or cam 5
block 12 defining a continuous inner surface 13; a rotor assembly or rotor 11 6
supported on a shaft for rotation within the cam block 12; and a plurality of 7
“L” shaped vanes 21 supported for radial movement within radial slots in the 8
rotor 11. (Sundberg, col. 3, ll. 9-14 and 27-33; col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 5; and 9
figs. 1-3). Sundberg describes each of the vanes 21 as including a cavity or 10
compartment 26. (Sundberg, col. 4, ll. 12-18). Figure 1 of Sundberg depicts 11
each of these cavities 26 as a passage having openings through the leading 12
and trailing edges of the vane 21 through which the cavity 26 passes. 13
The Examiner finds that the cavities 26 are passages. (See Ans. 5 14
(finding that Sundberg discloses “a passage 26”)). The cavities 26 are no 15
less passages for varying in cross section depending on the radial force 16
component induced by fluid pressure on the inner surfaces of the vanes 21 17
through which the cavities 26 pass. 18
Davin discloses a hydraulic power unit 10 including a cylindrical rotor 19
12 supported within an annular cam 16 by a shaft 14. (Davin, col. 2, ll. 23-20
30). The hydraulic power unit 10 additionally includes vanes 34 slidably 21
mounted within vanes slots 36 formed in the rotor 12. (Davin, col. 2, ll. 46-22
49). Davin discloses that, at times, the fluid pressure on the leading edge of 23
a vane 34 exceeds the fluid pressure on the trailing edge. Davin teaches that 24
this pressure differential tends to force the proximal side (that is, the trailing 25
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

15
edge) 46 of the vane 34 against the opposing proximal side 44 of the co-1
acting vane slot 36, causing friction and wear between the vane 34 and the 2
vane slot 36. (Davin, col. 3, ll. 17-44 and fig. 2). 3
Davin addresses this problem by providing a cavity 52 recessed into 4
the trailing edge 46 of each vane 34; another cavity 60 recessed into the 5
leading edge 42 of the vane 34; and a cavity 59 providing a passage 6
connecting the cavities 52, 60. (Davin, col. 4, ll. 11-16 and 28-32). The 7
cavity 52 in the trailing edge 46 is isolated from communication with the 8
space 22b behind the trailing edge 46 of the vane 34 by an outer sealing 9
surface 56 formed on the trailing edge of the vane. (Davin, col. 4, ll. 21-27). 10
In other words, the cavity 52 remains within the slot 36 during all operation.3 11
Davin teaches that the arrangement of cavities 52, 58, 60 described in the 12
reference offsets the lateral force of fluid pressure tending to force the vane 13
34 against the proximal side surface 44 of the slot 36. (Davin, col. 4, ll. 59-14
67). 15
“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of 16
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar 17
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual 18
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 19
U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007). Since Sundberg and Davin both disclose devices 20
operable as vane pumps, it would have been obvious to apply to Sundberg’s 21
vane pump the improvement taught by Davin. That is, it would have been 22
obvious to provide the trailing edge of each of Sundberg’s vanes 21 with a 23

3 The passage of Davin at column 4, lines 52-57 does not indicate to the
contrary. In context, and particularly in view of the previous sentence, the
passage appears to confuse the reference numerals 50 and 60.
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

16
shallow, blind cavity similar to the cavities 52 described by Davin. 1
Providing Sundberg’s vanes 21 with shallow, blind cavities surrounding the 2
openings of the passages 26 through the trailing edges of the vanes 21 would 3
have allowed pressure to communicate between the leading and trailing 4
surfaces of the vane 21 to balance the lateral forces imposed on the vanes 21 5
by the fluid pressure. Balancing the lateral forces imposed on the vanes 21 6
by the fluid pressure would have tended to reduce friction and wear between 7
the vanes 21 and the slots. 8
Following the teachings of Davin, one of ordinary skill in the art 9
would have had reason to restrict the height of the blind cavity added to the 10
trailing edge of a vane 21 so that the blind cavity remained within the slot 11
and out of communication with the space behind the trailing edge during all 12
operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a need to 13
prevent the blind cavity from communicating with the pressure in the space 14
behind the trailing edge of the vane 21 In order to maintain the balance of 15
lateral forces over the lower portion of the vane 21 as suggested by Davin. 16
The Appellant provides no argument sufficient to show that such an 17
improvement would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. 18
Furthermore, the Appellant provides no argument sufficient to show that one 19
of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that 20
the proposed improvement would have succeeded in its objects. In 21
particular, the improvement addresses the balancing of the lateral force 22
components induced by fluid pressure on the vane 21. Since the passage 26 23
and the newly-added blind cavity would not have communicated with the 24
fluid behind the trailing edge of the vane 21, the balancing of the lateral 25
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

17
force components would not have affected significantly the role of the 1
passage 26 in selectively regulating the radial force components directing 2
the vane 21 against the inner surface of the cam block in the pump and seal 3
arcs. 4
For this last reason, the proposed improvement would not have 5
defeated the purpose taught by Sundberg. Since the balancing of the lateral 6
force components would have had no significant effect on the role of the 7
passage 26 in selectively regulating the radial force components directing 8
the vane 21, the improvement would not have destroyed any capability of 9
Sundberg’s structure to selectively regulate the positive loading pressure of 10
the vanes against the inner surface of the cam block in the pump and seal 11
arcs to assure positive tracking of the vane tips in these areas. The 12
Appellants have not shown that Sundberg taught away from the proposed 13
improvement. For this reason, I would have affirmed the rejection of claim 14
16. 15
I concur in reversing the rejection of claim 17, which depends from 16
claim 16, for the same reasons discussed by my colleagues in reversing the 17
rejection of claim 1. 18
I also concur in reversing the rejection of independent claim 9 and 19
dependent claims 11-14. Claim 9 recites a valve for regulating pressure 20
communication between an undervane discharge channel and an overvane 21
discharge channel. Neither Sundberg nor Davin discloses or suggests a vane 22
pump assembly including a valve for regulating pressure communication 23
between an undervane discharge channel and an overvane discharge 24
Appeal 2008-006072
Application 10/922,293

18
channel. Davin’s teaching that a fluid control valve may be used to position 1
a cam block in a hydraulic power unit does not make up this deficiency. 2
3
4
5
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 6
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD 7
SUITE 350 8
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 9